44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
- May/12/22 1:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
We are here today to talk about the creation of a parliamentary committee to look at the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China. This is a very important issue, given that China is a major player, to say the least, both economically and in terms of national security, the environment, and so forth. That is why we want a parliamentary committee to look into this.
Why should such a parliamentary committee be created? A parliamentary committee is independent from the executive. This makes it independent from the Office of the Prime Minister, which can give orders to his members. In a parliamentary committee, all members are theoretically independent from the executive.
Some may be wondering why we are using an opposition day to talk about this. The reason is that this is how to go about creating a committee. We could have come to an agreement with the government party to create this committee, but unfortunately, the government party refuses to create it.
The Conservative Party believes that this is important. The way to create this committee is to have a vote in the House. Every member will be able to vote freely. We shall see what the result of the vote is, but we assume members will vote in favour of creating a committee.
I remind members that the proposed committee will study many matters presently affecting Canadians: the economy, national security, the environment and the supply chain. The issue with supply chains directly affects our producers and our economy and has a direct impact on inflation, which affects all Canadians. We support creating this committee, which will address issues that affect or are of concern to all Canadians.
I also remind members that this committee already existed in the former Parliament, that is before the Prime Minister very arrogantly triggered an election in the midst of the pandemic. The committee met over 30 times to hear from more than 100 witnesses. The committee tabled three reports after studying matters that were damaging for China, but very important to Canada. I—
364 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:02:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on our motion to establish, or re-establish, the Canada-China parliamentary committee in order to study issues directly affecting our country's relationship with this very strong, yet concerning global power.
We would like to re-establish this committee, which was struck in the last Parliament but was disbanded when the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election that cost Canadians over $600 million and ended up being nothing more than a cabinet shuffle. The committee still managed to table three reports on the topics of espionage, the relationship with Hong Kong and the Uighur tragedy.
I would also like to remind you that this government has had five foreign affairs ministers in the past six years. This is in no way a negative assessment of the people who have held that position, quite the contrary. They are people of quality and goodwill, for whom I have esteem and respect.
It should be noted, however, that the fact that we have had five different foreign affairs ministers has an impact on our country's credibility in the eyes of the world, especially when it comes to an issue as sensitive as our relations with China. We hope that the current Minister of Foreign Affairs will stay in that role long enough to build a truly meaningful bilateral relationship with our partners.
Now I would like to talk about the committee that would study issues of importance to all Canadians.
First, the economy. We know that China is one of Canada's economic partners, and not a small one. China is our second-largest economic partner in terms of both imports and exports. Our great friend, ally and neighbour, the United States of America is, of course, the first.
When the economy is directly tied to our trade relationship with a superpower like China, we cannot pretend nothing is going on there. If the committee wants to, it can study economic issues and tackle the supply chain head-on. We know the whole world is experiencing serious supply issues, not just because of the pandemic, but also because of tense relationships between certain countries. I will say more about that later.
We need to be able to get to the bottom of this supply problem, which is causing very serious damage not only to our economy, but also to the daily lives of Canadians. When our businesses do not have access to the parts they need, it delays manufacturing, pushes prices up and creates inflation. The committee needs to address these things. We are talking about our second largest trading partner.
We also have concerns about safety, as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint‑Charles mentioned this morning. We also have to think about the Arctic, which the committee studied in the previous Parliament. China has a presence in our territory, in our waters and on our Arctic lands, which makes no sense. We must exercise our sovereignty and get to the bottom of this, because our national security is at stake.
We also have concerns about our telecommunications and the possibility of spying by China, which may have taken place or could take place here in Canada. We need to be careful and vigilant and get to the bottom of things, which is what a parliamentary committee does.
The same goes for natural resources. Our country, which is rich in people and natural resources, is in direct competition with China, which does not have the same manufacturing quality standards, nor the same respect for the environment or human rights.
When our primary competitor slashes wages left and right and can sell its natural resources for a much lower price than would be possible for us, since we respect people and the environment, it is time to investigate. This is especially important when it is a matter of rare metals or the metals of the future, such as lithium.
Canada is full of these natural resources, and it is up to us to develop them intelligently, with domestic secondary or tertiary processing facilities. We know that China also has a lot of natural resources, and it is up to us to study the situation in order to improve it globally.
This brings me to the climate. Canada is responsible for 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If Canada were to shut down tomorrow morning, the entire planet might be better off because there would be 1.6% less pollution. China, on the other hand, produces 27% of greenhouse gas emissions. That is a massive amount.
As China's economy expands, the country is producing even more pollution and moving towards energy resources like coal, which is highly polluting. Even if Canada does a thousand things to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, nothing will change if China continues to pollute non-stop, without attempting to reduce its emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions do not need a passport to travel around the world.
Yes, we support Canada's efforts, but we also realize that if other countries are not making an effort, then pollution will not go down. At the end of the day, it is the planet that pays.
In closing, what has been happening since February 24 does have an impact on international relations. Ever since Putin's Russia decided to illegally invade the peaceful and non-aggressive country of Ukraine and wage war on it, there have been global consequences. I know that we will have the opportunity to discuss this at another time. For example, Canada's economy and natural resources could be helping Europe at present. Instead, European countries are currently subsidizing Putin's war through their dependence on Russia's natural resources. Yes, this war has a direct impact on our relations with China.
To conclude, we believe that it would be a very good thing if the House unanimously, if possible, decided to vote in favour of our motion. Unfortunately, the government does not want to reinstate the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Reinstating this committee would make it possible for us to closely examine the strong relationship that we have with our second-largest trading partner. This relationship must be based on the economy, but also on respect for human rights, national security and the future of our natural resources.
1058 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been here for a long time and I appreciate his contributions to Canadian democracy.
Speaking of that, what he said is totally wrong. There is a huge difference between the state of China and the Chinese people, especially those who live in this country. They have been selected by this country and have decided to live here. Some are descendants who are very proud. In my own riding, there are people whose grandfathers and grandmothers came from China. We welcome them. They are proud Canadians and we have to be proud of them. There is a huge difference between the people of China and the dictatorship we see in China.
Let me be clear. We will never attack any people from China, but we will be very strong against the republic and state of China.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:13:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Manicouagan is well aware that hundreds and thousands of families in her riding need access to cars that have to run in the winter and cover great distances because there is not much of a public transit system in her riding. She has won the past three elections. She was re-elected three times. She is well aware that this is the everyday reality for people in her riding.
She is also well aware that Canada is a leader in clean energy production. She will be pleased to learn and to remember that Alberta is the top producer of wind and solar energy. The biggest solar farm is in Alberta. Our country has the highest environmental standards for energy production. We are an inspiration to the whole world, and that is great.
The more clean, efficient energy Canada produces for all Canadians, the more clean energy there will be for the whole world and the less polluting energy there will be in China.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:15:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Green Party for her question.
Canada is a model country when it comes to the environment and energy production. As long as we need oil and gas, I will always be the biggest supporter of this Canadian energy. I would rather have it here in Canada, and purchase it domestically, rather than send billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Texas.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood and say to him that, earlier, I misspoke when I said that he was wrong. What he said was false, but not what he thought, of course.
I want to clarify the situation. It is the opposite of what was suggested. That happens sometimes.
At the end of his speech, the member said that he agreed with the principle behind the motion. I would like to know if he will be supporting it.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his speech. It is always a pleasure to remind him that I am one of his constituents when I spend the week in Ottawa. I stay in Hull, a sector of Gatineau, and he is my MP. I therefore regularly receive his always interesting and pertinent, if lengthy, newsletters in the mail. I just want to give my regards to my MP.
My colleague quite correctly highlighted the fact that Canada has been officially bilingual since its foundation, but that the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. We learned that this was the year of his birth, which is a fun bit of trivia.
He also noted that over 90% of senior executives in the public service are bilingual. In fact, I spoke last weekend with a high-ranking official from an important department who spoke perfect French despite having an English-sounding last name.
In his speech, my colleague talked about the various milestones, including how Prime Minister Pearson established a commission to study bilingualism and biculturalism and how the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 under Prime Minister Trudeau. However, he forgot to include one thing in his historical overview and that is that, in 2015, the year he and I were both elected, his party's election platform provided for a review of the act. It took more than six years before his party delivered on that review.
Does he think his government was slow to act?
253 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I am happy to be speaking in the House at 10 p.m., even though this is usually when I go to bed.
We are here to talk about Bill C‑13, bilingualism and Canada's two official languages.
First of all, I want to provide an overview of the situation. I believe that all members of the House recognize that French is in decline and, in some ways, threatened. This is the case in Quebec and in minority communities across Canada.
Quebec's National Assembly has demonstrated, almost mathematically, that the use of French has been declining for more than a decade. It is fully documented as well. The Quebec government has tabled legislation that is being debated in the National Assembly. Let the debate take place where it belongs, in the National Assembly, in Quebec.
Here, we are debating Bill C-13, which addresses the issue of bilingualism and the decline of French in this country. I will have the opportunity to come back to this in more detail, but, in our opinion, this is a minor reform, when a serious reform was needed. It proposes minor changes when what we need are big ones.
As it stands, we do not believe that the bill will stop the decline of French. This is essentially because the bill lacks teeth. We will describe it later, but what we need are concrete enforcement measures. The fines must be significant and not symbolic. This bill does not contain the measures needed. It also ignores the demands made by nearly all French-language advocacy groups.
The Treasury Board is where the final decision has to be made and where the action will have to be taken. That is where everything happens. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board needs the tools to enforce bilingualism and the French language in certain areas where it is in decline. Unfortunately, the bill does not go quite that far.
How has it gotten to this point?
I remind members that it was back in the 1960s that the debate started over whether Canada should be a bilingual country and whether, its two languages, French and English, should have equal status in its institutions.
There was the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, or the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission was established in the 1960s, under the leadership of the prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned.
In 1969, the prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed in the House of Commons the first legislation on both official languages, which put French and English on exactly the same footing, the same level, with the same responsibilities and the same privileges.
Across Canada, in the federal government, in the public service and elsewhere in its territories, this meant having the same services from coast to coast to coast in both official languages. Of course at first, there was some gnashing of teeth, which is entirely predictable and legitimate, for those who grew up in a country where official bilingualism did not exist. When we have to learn a second language overnight, that can seem like a huge challenge.
Now, almost 53 years later, anyone pursuing a career in the federal public service can expect to have to speak both official languages at some point. Anyone with their sights set on a senior position needs to expect that, and that is as it should be.
The first Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government gave it a major refresh and upgrade in 1988. After that, nothing was done right away to completely overhaul bilingualism. As everyone knows, the Harper government took steps to really protect French in some areas where it is not the majority language.
Then came the 2015 election, and members will recall that the current governing party promised, with hand over heart, to review the Official Languages Act.
From 2015 to 2019, no progress was made in this regard. There was an election and then, in 2021, lo and behold, the government began to take action. However, since the Prime Minister decided to call a second election in the midst of a pandemic, against all scientific advice, the government's initiative did not go any further.
That is why we have Bill C-13 before us today, when my government friends promised such a bill in 2015. It took them six years.
We have concerns about this bill. We believe that, when the government talks about official languages, there is all too often a lot of lip service. No one can be against apple pie, as the saying goes, and we all want to protect minority languages and French, but is the government really taking the strong, serious, meaningful and appropriate measures needed to fully achieve that? Unfortunately, that is where the problem lies.
That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked the Treasury Board to have the final say on the application of the Official Languages Act, to show that there is muscle and that it is serious and rigorous. When it comes to government services to the public, it is the Treasury Board that has the greatest authority, since it is the body within the federal administration that says yes or no to tax expenditures.
I am not going to pass judgment on how enthusiastically successive Treasury Board presidents since 2015 have accepted endless spending. The authority to approve or refuse expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board. Several groups had asked for the Treasury Board to be given the responsibility in this instance, but unfortunately that did not happen.
The government also wants to make sure there is successful and acceptable francophone immigration in all communities from coast to coast to coast, but, once again, there is no clear and specific objective.
There is also no power to issue orders or deterrent fines to businesses that fail to respect official languages. Earlier, someone mentioned the example of a $25,000 fine for a national organization whose president is not bilingual. That amount is a drop in the bucket for an organization of that size.
The bill also gives federally regulated organizations in Quebec the option of being subject to either Bill 101 or the federal legislation, but that is no way to handle this file. A person cannot be half pregnant. We are either for Bill 101 or against it. In this case, we are letting businesses choose, but that is not the way it should be.
That is why many minority rights advocacy groups have come forward to say that Bill C‑13 might be well intentioned, with laudable objectives, but, basically, it fails to meet the needs of minorities.
Liane Roy, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, put it so well when she said that the biggest disappointment is that there needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time. Responsibility for the new act is still split between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which may delegate powers to other departments.
As the FCFA said on March 2, the bilingualism policy lacks a clear objective. Will it be about maintaining or increasing our demographic weight? This does not accomplish what the government says it wants to do in immigration, if we refer to the February 2021 document from the former official languages minister.
As a final point, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Communities said on March 1 that in Manitoba's experience, what is needed is an approach to francophone immigration that goes beyond federal targets and objectives, that involves all those working on the ground, even municipal authorities, similar to what was done with the welcoming communities project.
From the Conservatives' perspective, Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and should go back to the drawing board.
1399 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's comments. I really enjoy the minister's company. I knew her in another life. She was a parliamentary secretary to the finance minister when I was the finance critic, as members will recall.
If the minister thinks that we, the Conservatives, are harsh, I would simply like her to be aware of the fact that someone who she certainly knows very well, Liane Roy, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, commented on the subject the minister just brought up and expressed her great disappointment. She said, and I quote:
There needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time....That is the difference between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which can delegate powers to other departments.
In short, we are not the only ones who are being a bit tough on the minister's bill. It is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, which she is very familiar with.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that, in our last two campaign platforms, Conservatives said that Bill 101 could apply to businesses in Quebec. Over three-quarters of a million Quebeckers voted for us and that approach.
I also want to make it clear that we Conservatives seize every opportunity to demonstrate our tremendous respect for jurisdiction. One thing federal Conservatives will not do is tell the provinces how to do certain things. That is reciprocal, actually.
To us, protecting the French language is essentially in Quebec's bailiwick. Quebec started working on it in the 1960s with Bill 63, which was not exactly the greatest invention of the century. In 1974, there was Bill 22, which had more teeth but did more harm than good, some say. Then Bill 101 was passed in 1977, and the debate on Bill 96 is under way as we speak.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, from our perspective, in order to be taken seriously, one must grant the necessary powers.
As far as we are concerned, what matters most is Treasury Board authority, but yes, the Commissioner of Official Languages must have some real muscle. That said, should we be surprised to see this government introduce a bill that is weak with respect to certain demands?
After all, this is the Prime Minister who, when looking to appoint someone to the position of governor general, the highest position in the land, when he had 38 million Canadians to choose from, selected someone who does not speak French.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
